For Frederick Douglass' Paper.

MR. EDITOR:—What is prejudice, its cause, and against what is it applied? Some say against "complexion," others "condition!" Is it either or any one of them? The learned doctors disagree; and it is not likely that any of them will be able to prescribe a cure, until they have found out the true nature and cause of the disease.

I was amused on reading the running debate on this subject, as reported in the Standard of the 7th inst.

W. W. Brown commences by stating that "prejudice" originated in the slave States, because slavery exists there; that it applies to condition, not color; that the latter is the mark that instances the condition. The condition of slaves is a general condition, they all being denied the right of self-control. But how will Mr. Brown's argument apply to the condition of the colored people in the free States? Is not their condition as special and variable as the whites, among whom they reside? He says that "he did not feel it in England, but on landing at Philadelphia, was droven out of an omnibus on account of it."

Now, if Mr. B. had landed in Boston instead of Philadelphia, and " entered an omnibus," he would, doubtless, have been without an illustration for his argument. Boston and Philadelphia are both in "free States," and equally connected with the slave power by the Constitution and laws of the federal government. Now, if the cause of prejudice was against the condition of Mr. B., why did he not receive the same treatment in England and Boston, as in Philadelphia?

I regret that we have not a full report of the debate. The Rev. Beriah Green, it is said, poured forth a stream of philosophy on the subject; and I readily grant, that if this "prejudice" was found in philosophy, he is the very man to explain its "cause and effect." But unfortunately for this distinguished speaker and profound thinker, it does not repose in the sacred sepulchre of philosophy. Its foundation is in men's selfish nature, pride and ambition, which rule and govern his worst passions. It grows spontaneous, inflates the instincts of the ignorant, and directs the minds of the learned. It has a home at the fireside and the altar. It follows men to the loftiest heights of ambition, and down to the deepest grave. It nerves the arm of the despot, and nestles in the affections of the patron saint. It is of antiquated birth, and witnessed the slaying of the Egyptian by Moses. It is older than kings or constitutions. It is not physical in its nature, and can only become the patron of governments by adoption.

Mr. Green says, "this colorphobia is what in Europe is called caste, and in the Bible, respect of persons. The color is of no account. It is only the index of slavery, and despised for that cause." What! the color of no account, and yet the index of slavery. Why, the index of a book is of great importance to the reader, and so is the "color" to the slaveholder. If it was not for the "color,"

the fugitive slave law would be rendered nugatory. The color is despised, because it is the index of slavery, under a slaveholding government. This appears very extraordinary. It would be but fair to suppose that these who were favorable to the institution of slavery, would love the complexion that designated the victims over whom they held despotic control; and that those who hated slavery, would hate the index that pointed to it. If this supposition be founded in truth, it furnishes a reason why "prejudice" is stronger against colored persons in the free, than in the slave States. But let us agree for the sake of argument, that "color" is the index of slavery, and that "prejudice against color" (as we call it, says Frederick Douglass) is an emanation from it. Is it logical to believe that it can exist after the cause is renovated? Let us then suppose that "chattel slavery" shall be abolished by nat-ural and State legislation tomorrow, will any sane mind believe for a minute that this natural edict will obliterate this prejudice by the same "fell swoop?" Certainly not.—Will not this "color be of some account as an index" to the State governments, as it is now to the government of the "free States," as a standard to disqualify the colored people from the rights and privileges of the elective franchise, to erect "negro pews," to debar them from equal privileges in colleges, schools, trades, the arts and sciences, the social circle, the halls of legislature, the jury box, the forum, public conveyances, &c.?

In my opinion, the power that this prejudice now exerts in the few States, is not dependent on the footed breath of slavery, but that the people of those Commonwealths, are capable of perpetuating it after slavery is abolished. Therefore, I am unable to comprehend the doctrine, that this prejudice has its origin in "chattel slavery," or that it will be obliterated by its abolition. I think the discovery will yet be made, that this prejudice is over very ancient birth; that it has pursued different nationalities down the long catalogue of ages, that is is older than American slavery, and that the latter derived its existence from an organic action of the former. I intended to notice the arguments of the other speakers, but my sheet is full.

W. W.